The self-concepts of
behavioral disordered students and regular education students, grades 4th-6th
were compared. The experimental group was enrolled in a regular class and the
control group was enrolled in a special education class (n = 35). A
three-point scale using art therapy techniques was the research method used to
examine self-concept observed in the self-family and self pictures. The results
indicated that the labeled group of behavioral disordered students internalized
a more negative self-concept. Pictures drawn by the experimental group
possessed darker colors, less variation in color combination, and more
derogatory formations vs. the art created by the control group that projected
brilliant colors, more color combination, and positively portrayed formations.
Color choice (t = 2.92 ) (p < .006), affect 1 (t = 4.24) (p < .000), and affect
2 (t = 2.40) (p < .044) were found to have significant difference. The findings
supported the self-fulfilling prophecy and the idea that being negatively
labeled does become internalized and affects self-perception.

Human interaction, socialization, and established
relationships are vital to the very existence and functioning of our society.
Every day people decide whether to accept or reject a person based on various
characteristics and every day people experience being included or excluded.
Theories developed by Erikson, Bronfennbrener, and Freud, suggested that
establishing positive human interaction, socialization, and relationships during
childhood and adolescence are essential to a healthy development. Therefore, it
seems as though, if a child is constantly accepted, he/she will develop a
positive sense of self; and if the child is constantly rejected, then he/she
will develop a negative sense of self.

Great concern should be expressed for children who
are rejected by their peers because it is assumed that those individuals who
fail early in life will continue to fail throughout their existence. In other
words, if a person cannot establish positive relationships and successful
interaction techniques as a child, then that person will discover, as an adult,
the same difficulties and failures. Many times the rejection is facilitated by
authoritative powers such as academic administrators and educators who ostracize
the children by assigning special education labels and by segregating the
labeled children into separate classrooms.

The U.S.
Department of Education (1993) reported that during the 1991-1992 school year,
37.2% of behavioral disordered children dropped out of school, 23% has a status
of unknown, 8% obtained a certificate, and only 30% graduated with a diploma
(Gregory, 1994). Gregory reported, “considering all students with disabilities,
those with behavioral disorders are least likely to graduate from high school
with a diploma, and are most likely to dropout” (p.16). Other studies supported
this finding with a more specific example of externalizing disorder children
that suggests children illustrating highly aggressive behavior are likely to
portray a poor academic performance and drop out of school more frequently (DeRosier,
Kupersmidt, & Patterson, 1993; & Ollendick, Wiest, Borden, & Greene, 1992).

Behavioral disorders are defined by the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997) as socially agreed upon labels of
abnormal behavior that have persisted over a long period of time, and
detrimentally affect educational development. In addition, behavioral disorders
are considered: 1) inabilities that can not be explained by intellectual,
sensory, or health factors that make learning difficult; 2) inabilities to
establish and maintain successful relationships with peers and teachers; 3)
inappropriate behaviors or feelings under normal situations; 4) generally
consistent moods of sadness or depression, and/or; 5) the inclination to develop
physical symptoms or fears of problems that are school or personally related.
The negativity surrounding labeling, stereotyping, and stigmatizing has led to
many states adopting new terminology when referring to behavioral disordered,
such as emotionally disturbed, socially and emotionally maladjusted, and
emotionally disturbed as a way to be less stigmatizing (Gregory, 1994).

Several
systems of classifying behavioral disorders have been developed; however, the
simplest systems categorize the disorders into two groups (Gregory 1994, &
Fausett, 2003). In each instance, the behavior disorders are grouped by the
rate of incidence frequency or how visible and recognizable the behavior
problems appear: high incidence behaviors/externalizing behaviors and low
incidence behaviors/internalizing behaviors. According to Gregory (1994),
Achenbach and Edelbrock developed such a system of two major categories,
internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Externalizing behaviors are most
often observed as conduct disorders. “Behaviors commonly associated with
conduct disorders are physical and verbal aggression, violation of basic rules
and rights of others, antagonistic attitudes toward authority,
argumentativeness, defiant and noncompliant behavior and confrontational
behavior. . . . disruptive, inattentive, impulsive and distractible behavior”
(Gregory, 1994, p. 13). Other high incidence behaviors are hyperactivity,
aggressiveness, rule-breaking, juvenile delinquency, and socially withdrawn
behaviors (Rosenberg, Wilson, Maheady, Sindelar, Misra, & Misra, 2004).
Internalizing behaviors are most often defined by characteristics of depression,
anxiety disorders, and adjustment disorders. Behaviors that fall under this
category include:

Pervasive developmental disorders
such as Autism, self-injurious behaviors, Asperger’s syndrome, childhood
disintegrative disorder, and an early-onset of schizophrenia are also included
in this category (Rosenberg, Wilson, Maheady, Sindelar, Misra, & Misra, 2004).
Faussett (2003) reported that a 1995 study (Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins) shows
that at-risk children for internalized disorders are those who are ostracized
for some factor and in response to the exclusion chose to seclude themselves
into solitude. Results of this solitude include loosing the chance of becoming
socialized, learning socially accepted behavior, and being accepted and children
who are at risk for externalized disorders are those who interact with others in
a negative manner.

Reports
suggest that teachers in special education spend less time discussing academic
topics with students and more time focusing on nonacademic topics (Bulgren &
Carta, 1992). Most of the time, the focus in these classrooms is on the
inabilities of the children. For example, if the child has a behavior problem,
then the focus of the teacher will be on the child’s behavior (deviant
behavior); if the child has a learning problem, then the focus of the teacher
will be on the child’s difficulties in learning. However, teacher involvement
and interaction with students show a link to student achievement; the more
involved the teacher is with the student, the more achievement the student will
obtain. According to Miller and Fritz (2000), students attending these
classrooms report no coherent teaching plan is established or followed
throughout the academic year, and the curriculum that is taught seems
repetitious from year to year, without providing challenging new information for
expansion. In addition, these classes tend to lower the goal of attainment; in
other words, teachers expect less academic progress and accomplishment from
students enrolled in a special education class (Ho, 2004).

Despite the extensive research in support of
exclusive special education classrooms in the mid 1900s, past research that
examined the progress of students enrolled in a special education classroom,
compared to those students remaining enrolled in a regular education classroom,
showed no signs of higher achievement for one group or the other (e.g., Semmel,
Gottlieb, Robinson, 1979; Rodee, 1971; & Budoff & Gottleib, 1976). While the
majority of comparisons between mainstream education and special education
suggest that mainstreaming and special education are equal in academic results (Budoff
& Gottleib, 1976; & Gottleib, 1981), some studies do suggest that those students
who are mainstreamed score higher on testing than those students segregated into
a special education classroom (Rodee, 1971). Research consistently suggested
that fully mainstreamed students in need of educational assistance would fail in
the social arena of schooling because of their inability to interact in an
acceptable manner (e.g., Johnson & Kirk 1950; Heber, 1956; & Baldwin, 1958).

The basic assumption
that, labeling leads to stigmatization, has been proposed and supported with
findings by Becker (1963), Lemert (1967), Goffman (1986), and Riddick (2000).
Goffman (1963), Fausett (2003), and Green (2003) suggest that stigma is a social
process that separates people based on differences, usually of 1) physiological
or biological manner such as race, age, gender, or physical appearance, or 2)
social or behavioral status such as mental illness, ethnicity, perceived social
class (Harper, 1999). Danda (2002), Susman (1994), Harper (1999), and Milich and
McAninch (1992) further defined stigma as negative stereotypes of difference
that can lead to prejudice or discrimination. Stigma and labeling can only
affectively discriminate and oppress individuals when negative social reaction
is a result of behavior. Stigma only affects self-concept when the individual
has accepted and internalized social beliefs about normal behaviors, while
simultaneously acknowledged that he/she is not perceived as normal and then
concluding a lack of normalness and acceptance (Goffman, 1963).

Faussett (2003) and Green (2003) explained stigma
and labeling in terms of Link’s Modified Labeling Theory. The first step
assumes that a general consensus of society exists that devalues and
discriminates against certain labels and those who are stigmatized by those
labels. The second step explains that in order for stigmatization to
affectively exclude and oppress the individual, he/she must internalize the
label. Step three is how the individual reacts to the status now that the
negative attributes are attached to the individual’s self-concept, whether it be
ignoring the label and hiding the disability, withdrawing from others who are
suppressive, or interacting and educating others. Step four evaluates how lives
are affected by the label and stigma imposed on people. Lowered self-esteem
(Link, 1987) and negative social interactions are common results of being
stigmatized with a negative label, which Fausett (2003) suggests will hinder
future success for those individuals labeled. In the process of stigmatization,
any information presented about a person that is not consistent with the applied
label or stereotype is disregarded and completely ignored.

Ho (2004) reported that being labeled as having a
special educational need can influence people’s perceptions and expectations of
students. Numerous studies report that children labeled as handicapped are less
accepted than their ‘normal’ peers (Scranton & Rychman, 2001; Baldwin, 1958;
Goodman, Gottlieb, & Harrison, 1972; Iano, Ayres, Heller, McGettigan, & Walker,
1974; & Johnson & Kirk, 1950). Social interaction reinforces internalization of
negative self-concepts. The new self-beliefs result in deviant behavior, which
in turn inhibits that individual from successfully interacting with others.

Studies have consistently found that labels and
their implied meanings affect how others interact and perceive students
negatively labeled (Pelham & Bender, 1982; Milich, & McAninch, 1992; & Bromfield,
Weisz, & Messer, 1986). The results of these studies revealed that the
perceivers were more likely to become less involved and interested when their
partners were label behavioral disordered. Milich and McAninch (1992) reported
findings that revealed initial labels and descriptions of a child, regardless of
truths or fallacies, will influence the expectations and feelings held by their
peers and later interactions between peers and the child.

Other studies have found that when peers are aware
of the negative label they are more likely to exclude and reject the labeled
child by being less friendly, talking less, and interacting less frequently (Milich
& McAninch, 1992). Children as young as elementary age can identify deviant
peers such as behavioral disordered children and will exclude those labeled
students from the group and the more prevalent and visible the deviant behavior
is recognized, then the more neglect and rejection the labeled student will
experience (Novak, 1974). Children could successfully discriminate between
children who acted normally and children who acted abnormal. This ability of
children to be able to identify behaviorally/emotionally-disordered children and
rate them less favorably suggests negative peer relations and a negative
self-esteem for those children who are identified as abnormal. Social reaction
to children being labeled behavioral disordered is exclusion; children who are
labeled tend to be ostracized from “regular” groups of students, which Fausett
(2003) states contributes to a lowered self-esteem. Numerous other studies
(e.g., MacMillan, Jones, & Aloia, 1974; & Fernald & Gettys, 1980) find that
self-concept, levels of aspiration, levels of expectations for achievement, and
later adjustment in life decreases while peer rejection increases.

Peer rejection has been established as having
negative effects on children during childhood and predicting negative future
outcomes (Sunwolf & Leets, 2004; & Harris, Milich, Corbitt, Hoover, & Brady,
1992). Studies have shown that students who are negatively labeled enjoy
activities and interaction less when their peers are aware of the difference
(e.g., Milich, & McAninch 1992; & Harris, Milich, Johnston, & Hoover, 1990).
Children are reported to have problems with isolation, antisocial behavior, and
lack of social growth or development (Sunwolf, & Leets, 2004). More specific
behaviors of children who are excluded from their peers are aggressiveness,
noncompliant, hyperactive, and being socially withdrawn (Wood, Cowan, & Baker,
2002). These studies have found that students specifically labeled behavioral
disordered or emotionally disturbed experience peer rejection and exclusion from
the group more often than students not labeled as such.

Teachers’ perception does affect student behavior
and success in the classroom. Many regular classroom teachers feel incompetent
and unqualified to deal with children who are in need of special education.
Furthermore, the research of Gickling and Theobald as cited in Parish, Dyck, and
Kappes (1979) reported, “50% of the regular classroom teachers surveyed felt
that mainstreaming actually was imposing upon them to help handicapped children”
(p. 64). These opinions of teachers suggest that teachers believe that
incorporating children who are underdeveloped or have deviated from the expected
student role is considered a nuisance. Studies conducted like that carried out
in Parish, et al. (1979), Parish and Copeland (1978), and Parish, Baker, Arheart,
and Adamchak (1980) suggests that teachers respond with a more positive attitude
to “gifted children,” “normal children,” and “physically handicapped children”
than they do to those students labeled “mentally retarded,” “emotionally
disturbed,” and “learning disabled.” Also, students labeled “emotionally
disturbed” received the most negative evaluations and ratings from the teachers
surveyed. Most of these labels focus on the failures and inabilities of a
student and completely ignores strengths of the child, which possibly results in
the label becoming the only identity of the child and the whole identity of the
student becoming lost.

The self-fulfilling prophecy, as defined by Darley
and Fazio (1980), is the relationship between a person’s preexisting belief and
expectation about another person that leads the other person to confirm the
belief through behavior. The person who holds the belief or expectation will
interact with the other person in a manner to suggest and facilitate the
predicted response, which is then acted out and confirmed by that person in a
manner that fulfills the prophecy. Harris, Milich, Corbitt, Hoover, & Brady
(1992) summarized the model of the expectancy process established by Darley and
Fazio as “expectations held by perceivers cause them to behave differently
toward targets in accordance with the expectancy; the targets, on experiencing
this treatment, respond in a manner that confirms the initial expectancy and
thus reinforces the perceivers’ expectations” (2).

Rosenthal, the leader of expectancy effects
studies, reported in several studies that the expectation of authority figures
do influence responses and behaviors of others such as experimenter to
participant and teacher to student. Milich and McAninch (1992) reported that
one controversial study found that students’ IQs significantly increased in one
school year when their teachers were led to expect high academic gains
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). Meeting the expectations of others appears to be
a possible result of the socialization process in the manner of labeling,
stigmatization, stereotyping, and peer rejection/exclusion.

Gregory (1994) states self-concepts are
self-beliefs or descriptions of one’s behaviors or attitudes that can be
simultaneously positive or negative self-perceptions of their personality,
capabilities, and behavior. Gregory (1994) reported that Carl Rogers
established the self-concept theory defining self-concept as “a result of an
individual’s interaction with his/her environment . . . . incorporating values
of others . . . . striving for consistency . . . . a result of maturation and
learning” (p. 41).

According to this definition, self-concept is
interchangeable with self-regard and self-esteem. In essence, if an individual
possess a high self-esteem or positive self-regard then that individual is said
to have a positive self-concept; in contrast, if an individual has low
self-esteem then the individual is said to have a negative self-concept.

A positive self-concept is viewed as 1) being
active and assertive in meeting demands and expectations of others; 2)
demonstrating confidence in abilities to succeed and deal with events; 3)
participating in independent exploration; 4) possessing self-respect, pride,
self-acceptance, and self-love; 5) accepted by peers; 6) and possessing a low
level of anxiety (Coopersmith, 1967). On the other hand, a negative
self-concept is defined as 1) having high level of anxiety; 2) possessing
feelings of inferiority; 3) having difficulty in forming meaning relationships;
4) eagerly conforming to social pressures and expectations; 5) responding
severely to criticism; 6) possessing pessimistic views of abilities and past,
present, and future behaviors (Coopersmith, 1967). According to Gregory (1994),
other researchers have established supported data that variables such as
attitudes and self-concept can influence behavior.

There is evidence to suggest that the special class
placement stigmatizes children who are labeled behavioral disordered and they
simultaneously internalize a lower self-concept (Jones, 1972). In addition,
these findings also suggest that the label implies deficiencies and shortcomings
of those identified. Colangelo, Kelly, and Schrepfer (1987), report a positive
correlation between academic success and self-concept; as academic success
increases so does self-concept, and as academic success decreases, so does
self-concept. The researchers found that of the gifted children, average
students, and special learning needs students that participated in the study,
special learning need students achieved the least academic success and appeared
to possess a lowest self-concept of all groups. In essence, those students who
have the greatest academic difficulties such as special education students also
have the greatest need for aid in improving their self-concept.

According to Gregory (1994), research has been
conducted that suggests self-concepts of behaviorally disordered children are
significantly lower than non-disabled peers. Furthermore, scores from
standardized measurement instruments for self-concept, academic self-concept,
and behavioral self-concept of behavioral disordered children are lower than
their non-labeled peers. Other studies report that partially mainstreamed and
partially segregated BD students have a significantly higher self-concept than
those BD students who were totally segregated into a special education classroom
(Gottlieb, 1981).

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory purports that
environmental factors, internal characteristics, and behavior do possess an
intertwining relationship. It could be suggested, then, that environmental
factors such as other people labeling students behavioral/emotional disordered
are internalized into a negative self-concept and the students then act out
negative behaviors. The first step is to examine whether or not behavioral
disorder children have indeed internalized their label and incorporated the
stigmatized and expected thoughts and behaviors into their sense of being.

The research examined the self-concepts of
behavioral disordered children. Self-concept was defined by color choice,
family inclusion/exclusion, proximity of family, family figure size, self size,
and overall affect or mood of the pictures drawn. This study hypothesized that
a behavior disorder labeled students would appear to depict a negative
self-concept more so than regular education students. This study also
hypothesized that those students enrolled in a regular curriculum class would
appear to illustrate a more positive self-concept than the behavior disordered
children.

Method

Participants

Participants
in this study consisted of 35 middle school students enrolled in two Midwest
public schools. The regular education student population came from a largely
populated and much diversified school located on a military base. The
behavioral disordered/special education student population came from a different
academic setting located in a rural area with a small student population. A
signed consent form from the school and legal guardian was required for
participation (See Appendix A). The student population consisted of 4th,
5th, and 6th grade females and males ranging from ages 9
to 13. African Americans, European Americans, Hispanics, and multiracial were
the only four ethnic categories represented by the sample population.

Testing
Materials

Supplies needed for
this project were 2 sheets of 8”x 11” white paper and a box of 16 crayola
crayons for each child. The supplies were provided by the researcher in an
attempt to establish consistency in color usage and space available in which to
draw. The colors included: black, brown, blue, blue green, green, yellow green,
blue violet, purple, red violet, red, pink, red orange, orange, yellow orange,
yellow, and white.

A ration chart
was developed to evaluate results by using a three point scale based on six
factors 1) color choice, 2) inclusion or exclusion of family members, 3)
proximity to parental figures and other family members, 4) size of family
members, 5) size of self figure, and 6) negative or positive affect. Color was
measured by 1 = majority of dark colors used (black, brown, blue), 2 = a mixture
of bright and dark colors used, and 3 = majority of bright colors used (red,
orange, yellow). Total exclusion of family members was represented by 1, while
inclusion of some family members was illustrated by 2, and total inclusion of
family members was portrayed by 3. A great distance between the person and
other family members was considered a 1, some closeness was measured as a 2, and
close proximity to other family members was a defined as a 3. Size of family
members was measured with a 1 = very small size, 2 = average size, and 3 = large
size. Similarly, size of self-figure was measured with 1 = very small size, 2 =
average size, and 3 = large size. Affect was defined as 1 = very negative
affect, 2 = mixture of negative and positive affect, and 3 = very positive
affect. Evaluations of the family drawing encompassed all six factors.
However, results of the self picture were evaluated based on only three of the
factors 1) color choice, 2) size of self figure, and 3) negative or positive
affect. Each factor was rated on a three point scale.

Procedure

Each school was
contacted by phone and informed of the intent of the researcher to analyze
artwork of the students. Classroom teachers were requested to instruct, based
on the directions left by the researcher, the students to create two drawings
one of self and one of the individual’s immediate family and self. Consent
forms were obtained from the school administration and also from each student.
Each student who agreed to participate created two pictures. The first creation
was a depiction of the individual’s nuclear family and self, and the second
picture was to represent the individual self.

On the scheduled day of the project each teacher
gave the students the following directions: “Use the white multi-use paper and a
set of crayons set before you to create two pictures. The first picture is
supposed to be a depiction of your immediate family or other individuals you
feel close to. The second drawing is supposed to illustrate how you feel and
think about yourself. After each picture is finished, please title the drawing
on the top of the paper.” Then the teacher wrote the demographics of each
student: gender, ethnicity, age, grade level, type of class whether special
education or regular education, and when it applied year placed in special
education and the BD label imposed on the student. After all the drawings were
completed and the information was filled out, the drawings were placed in a
manila envelope and stored in the principal’s office until they were picked up
later that same day by the researcher. The results were anonymous and the
researcher evaluated the drawings using a double-blind research approach.

Results

The sample
student population consisted of 15 females and 20 males with an average age of
10. Participants consisted of 5.7% (2) nine year olds, 34.3% (12) ten year
olds, 42.9% (15) eleven year olds, and 17.1% (6) twelve year olds. African
Americans made up 17.1% (6) of the sample while 68.6% (24) European Americans,
2.9% (1) Hispanics, and 11.4% (4) multiracial composed the rest of the
population. In addition, the sample was constructed of 8 (22.9%) 4th
graders, 25 (71.4%) 5th graders, and 2 (5.7%) 6th
graders. Out of the entire sample population of 35 students, 27 were enrolled
in only a regular class curriculum, and 8 were enrolled in only a special
education class curriculum and labeled BD. All 35 participants completed the
drawing of self, however, only 33 participants also completed the drawing of
self and family; two of the behavioral disordered students did not complete the
self-family drawing.

A series of
independent t-test were conducted using group membership (BD labeled or non-BD
labeled/regular education) as the independent variable. The dependent variables
used in the tests included for the self-family pictures: color choice,
exclusion/inclusion, closeness of family members, family size, self size,
affect, and for the self drawings: color choice, self size, and affect. Results
of these analyses can be observed in Table 1 and Table 2. Only three dependent
variables appeared to hold any significant findings. Color choices for
self-family pictures showed a significance of p < .006 and t = 2.92.
Affect depicted in self-family drawings also held a significance of p < .000 and
t = 4.24. In the self pictures, only affect was found to hold significant
difference p < .044 and t = 2.40.

Color choice
for the self-family picture drawn by regular education students illustrated more
bright colors (see Appendix B), a mean of 2.074, where as, behavioral disordered
students used more darker colors in their pictures (see Appendix C), a mean of
1.167. Affect for the self-family drawing was similarly distributed. Regular
education students had a mean affect of 2.667 (see Appendix D) and behavioral
disordered students possessed a mean affect of 1.50 (see Appendix E). The only
significance found in the self pictures was affect; regular education students
depicted affect with a mean of 2.74 (see Appendix F) and behavioral disordered
students illustrated affect with a mean of 1.87 (see Appendix G).

Further analysis of the results show a higher
self-concept in the self pictures than the self-family pictures. Only three
variables were used to make this comparison: color choice, size of self, and
affect. In the case of the self pictures, color choice had a mean of 2.057,
size of self had a mean of 2.37, and affect had a mean of 2.54, which
represented usage of brighter colors, slightly larger than average size of
depiction of self, and a more positive mood. Self-family drawings, on the other
hand, show a color choice mean of 1.91, a self size mean of 1.97, and an affect
mean of 2.45, which represents usage of darker colors, smaller depiction of self
size, and a more negative mood.

Overall five variables were found to have no
significant difference. In the instance of self-family pictures three variables
were found to hold no significant difference. Exclusion or inclusion of family
members held no significant difference with a p < .539 and t = .656. Closeness
of proximity among family members also did not show a significant difference p <
.131 and t = 1.550. (See Table 1.) Family size also had not significant
variance with a p < .556 and t = -.596. In the instance of self pictures, two
variables were found to hold no significant difference. Color choice had a p <
.151 and t = 1.47 and self size had a p < .256 and t = 1.156. (See Table 2.)

Even though no
significant difference was established by the results, the means of the
variables do suggest a difference between regular education students and
behavioral disordered students. Regular education students included family
members slightly more (mean = 2.889) than behavioral disordered students (mean =
2.667). In addition, a closer proximity of family members was observed in the
regular education students’ drawings, a mean of 2.74. Consequently, the
behavioral disordered students’ drawings showed a little more distance between
family members and a mean closeness of 2.33. Contrary to the more positive
finding in the self-family drawings of regular education students, the mean for
family size was found to 1.96 in the regular education students’ pictures and
2.167 in the behavioral disordered students’ drawings. A color choice mean of
2.148 and a self size mean of 2.444 were found in the self pictures of regular
education students, a more positive depiction. On the other hand, the self
pictures drawn by behavioral disordered children had a color choice mean of 1.75
and a self size mean of 2.125, a depiction of a more negative self concept.

Discussion

Because of
time constraints, this study did not receive the proper amount of time to obtain
a large and inclusive sample population. Only 27 participants were included in
the regular education sample and 8 participants in the behavioral disordered
sample. These numbers are not large enough to establish significant difference
between the two membership groups (regular education and behavioral
disordered). Also, the difference in numbers does not allow for a fair
comparison between groups.

Another
limitation included incomplete gathered data. Not all the participants were
able to complete both drawings. However, the drawings that were completed were
included in the study. Only two people did not finish their family drawing, but
their self drawing was included in the analyses. Suggestions for future
research includes a larger and more inclusive sample population and a longer
time frame within to complete and obtain enough data to establish credibility,
significance, and generalizability.

However, this
study finds partial support for both hypothesis that 1) behavior disorder
labeled students will appear to depict a negative self-concept more so than
regular education students and 2) those students enrolled in a regular
curriculum class will appear to illustrate a more positive self-concept than the
behavior disordered children. Behavioral disordered students were found to
illustrate self-family and self pictures possessing more negative attributes.
On the other hand, regular education students were found to illustrate
self-family and self pictures possessing more positive attributes, except for
exclusion/inclusion, which was recorded as more negative than the behavioral
disordered students’ drawings. Only three variables established significant
difference: color choice and affect in the self-family pictures and affect in
the self pictures. However, all other variables except exclusion/inclusion were
found to go in the direction of the hypotheses.

Overall, the
behavioral disordered students’ drawings illustrated a negative demeanor and
self-concept. In these pictures, darker colors such as blacks, browns, and
blues were the majority choice of color. Six of the fourteen pictures were
completed in only black, brown, and/or blue, or gray pencil. The color choice
suggest a sadness or unhappiness about the pictures and since the pictures are
depicting self and family it seems as though the pictures are representing an
unhappiness with self, which implies a negative self-concept.

In addition,
family size and self size observed in the drawings of behavioral disordered
students were of a small scale compared to the paper space provided. Some
family figures did not even take up half of the page and other families were not
even given bodies; just their heads were drawn. The size of the family members
appears to be the perception of how the participant viewed his/own family, which
seems to be negative. Furthermore, the size of self also seems to suggest that
the individual’s perception of self is low, which implies a negative
self-concept.

Also,
behavioral disordered students’ drawings illustrated a distant proximity of
family members. Only two families were depicted holding hands, while the
majority of the other self-family pictures portrayed the families being
separated either by concrete objects or not being able to touch do to the lack
of bodies being present. The distant portrayal of family closeness seems to
suggest a lack of family connectedness or support.

Moreover, the
general affect or mood of the behavioral disordered students’ pictures was of a
negative disposition. Most of the faces illustrated blank stares and lack of
emotion. Other drawings represented devious or mischievous demeanors through
facial expressions and portrayal of body parts. The dark colors used added to
the negative and depressive nature of the drawings.

On the other
hand, drawings of regular education students represented a more positive
atmosphere and self-concept. Brighter colors like whites, pinks, reds, oranges,
and yellows were the most common color choices in these drawings. A combined
usage of dark and bright colors was found in regular education students’
drawings. The choice of color usage seems to suggest that the perception held
by the participants is a sense of positive feelings such as happiness and
contentment.

In addition,
the proximity of family members drawn by regular education students appeared
much closer and personal in these drawings, yet total family inclusion
declined. It was difficult to decipher which members were included or excluded
from the drawings. However, the regular education students drew more numbers of
family members than behavioral disorder children. Almost all the self-family
pictures illustrated family members standing very closely; some drawings
depicted family members standing so close together that the figures drawn were
almost touching. The closeness of family members appears to be a depiction of
the closeness and sense of support felt by the participants with their
families. The exclusion of or lesser number of family members may simply mean
that the participants have very few immediate family members or they could
simply not feel close to all the members of their families.

Also, family
size and self size in the drawings of regular education students appeared larger
and covered more space on the paper. This portrayal of taking up large amount
of space seems to suggest that the participants’ perceptions of family and self
are very positive. This positive perception may be an indicator of positive
self-concept.

Moreover,
regular education students’ pictures possessed a positive affect or mood. For
example, smiles drawn on the faces were large and noticeable. Furthermore, the
activities depicted in the pictures appeared enjoyable and gratifying. The
positive depiction that was portrayed throughout the regular education students’
drawings seem to entail a positive perception and attitude about the people and
situations illustrated, which could suggest a positive self-concept.

Despite the
limitation of generalizability, this study did support previous findings that
self-concept for behavioral disordered children is lower than the self-concept
of non-labeled children. The findings of this study propose that by
incorporating negative aspects into their drawings, behavioral disordered
students appear to possess a negative self-concept, where as, regular education
students who have used more positive aspects in their drawings possess a
positive self-concept.

References

Baldwin, W. K. (1958). The social position of the educably mentally retarded
child in the regular grades. Exceptional Children, 25, 106-108; 112.